Linux has a long way to go before it becomes the major OS

Discussion in 'Linux Networking' started by Guest, Jan 22, 2004.

  1. Here in comp.os.linux.x,
    (james) spake unto us, saying:
    Windows can be more flexible and more stable than some people give it
    credit for. The first time I saw a LiteStep screenshot I was somewhat
    impressed that it could be made to look (and act) so differently, at
    least on the surface.

    I don't dislike Windows XP itself as a platform as much as I did the
    Windows 9x line, and most of *that* dislike on my part is historical
    (stemming from the OS/2 versus "Chicago" debates in the early 90's).

    Linux has several advantages over both Windows and OS/2, though, in
    that it's even more functionally flexible, and it's also "Free" in the
    sense that one isn't completely dependent on a corporate entity's whim
    of "What Is Good For All Wsers" anymore. We can choose! :)
     
    Richard Steiner, Feb 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    A.N.Other Guest

    I think everybody in this thread is missing some important points, 1) what
    defines a "major OS", 2) why did the originator of the thread think that
    Linux is not a "major OS'?



    How do you define anything as being a "major" player? To my mind its market
    share that defines whether a product is a "major". If this is true then
    Linux is not a major OS. Some of you will disagree with me on this and
    define "major" as the quality of the product, but think back to the
    Betamax/VHS battle, Betamax was clearly better technically but lost the
    market share and is no more. If Linux is to really become a major OS then it
    has to increase its market share significantly.



    Can Linux become a major, as currently offered I do not think that it is
    ever likely to become a major OS. Bear in mind that to the average pc user,
    the pc is an appliance not a computer, they do little or no "computing"
    unless your definition of computing is WEB browsing and email. For these
    people configuring Linux and all its various bits and pieces is far too
    complicated. They want a "plug and go" experience and whether we like it or
    not, M$ Windows offers that in spades. So far the closest I have seen in the
    Linux world is Xandros, or maybe Knoppix.



    If Linux is to become a major player, and by that I mean +33% of the market,
    then it has to become much more user friendly. I personally believe that
    somebody should produce a distro which offers nothing more than M$ windows,
    a desktop OS with none of the plethora of choices that most distros
    currently offer, the system should come pre-configured and to the largest
    extent possible auto install. I don't see this happening, not until the
    Linux community can set some real standards for how a system is to be
    configured, things like where does the OS puts its files, where do apps put
    theirs where are global setting stored where are per user setting put,
    providing simple easy to use user interfaces, getting rid of the dependence
    on the command line and consoles.



    If we don't make Linux much, much more user friendly very soon then it will
    be become the OS of the back room, and of geeks like myself, and ultimately
    the Betamax of the pc world.
     
    A.N.Other, Feb 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Andy Fraser Guest

    A.N.Other uttered the immortal words:

    I see this argument a lot but you're forgetting one thing: Joe Average gets
    Windows pre-installed and Joe Average might be unable to install Windows.
    If Linux came pre-installed Joe Average could just turn on and go just like
    my girlfriend does with my Linux PCs, pre-installed and configured by me.

    I can remember when my Dad installed Win2k. He's been using computers since
    1985 and does some programming but admits he's not a techie. He must've
    phoned me a dozen times to ask questions about partitions, drivers and
    other stuff. He'd never installed Windows before and had problems.

    Most PCs I see these days come with (semi-)automated recovery CDs to get the
    machine back to factory conditions. For a Linux system a set of recovery
    CDs would mean that Joe Average would never need to actually install Linux.
     
    Andy Fraser, Feb 17, 2004
  4. You'd be surprised at how many people out there have never even heard of
    Linux. Unless you follow the computing industry, it may be foreign to you.
    Preinstallation and marketing have made Windows a household name. Linux is
    fragmented between distros and not a houshold name at all. That may change
    with SuSE's acquisition and bold steps made by Sun and IBM. I've tried to
    get my friends to try it, but they won't. It's too foreign to them.



    --
    Big Daddy Ruel Smith

    My SuSE Linux machine uptime:
    5:07pm up 21:52, 2 users, load average: 0.85, 0.55, 0.40

    My Windows XP machine uptime:
    Something less...
     
    Ruel Smith (Big Daddy), Feb 17, 2004
  5. Guest

    Andy Fraser Guest

    Ruel Smith (Big Daddy) uttered the immortal words:
    I must have some open minded friends then :-D If they're over at my house
    and need to look something up on a website they do ok with Konqueror. Most
    of them don't care which browser they're using as long as they can see the
    web page. That is only web browsing though :)
     
    Andy Fraser, Feb 17, 2004
  6. I installed Debian Linux a month ago. I thinks it's probably great if your
    hobby or job is messing with computers. I care nothing about how my system
    works I just want to do my work. I have spent thousands of dollars of my
    time reading and trying to use Linux and still have to go back to Windows I
    realize this is my fault but it sure makes the price of windows look really
    cheap. By the way it installed easy after learning how to partition my hard
    drive.
    Doug
     
    Douglas Pollard, Feb 26, 2004
  7. Guest

    Wil Palen Guest

    I have convinced a half of my friends. if you ask them what software they
    are *actually* using, then 9 out of 10 will also be perfectly happy with a
    Linux OS.

    The only gap linux has to fill are the Adobe and Macromedia types of
    applications and music creation applications. That IS a real showstopper.
    But most windows using people only *toy* with these kind of programs or use
    only a very small subset of the functionality.

    A final note: a lot of people use pirated software. Once they have to pay
    for software, it'll be a quick switch to Free/OSS software for most.
     
    Wil Palen, Feb 28, 2004
  8. Guest

    Andy Fraser Guest

    This is what I've found too.
    I think you're right there. I use the GIMP in place of Photoshop and it's
    great. I hand code HTML too so Quanta is my axe here but I know a few
    designers who use Dreamweaver and they're the only people I know who are
    put off Linux.
    You may be right there.
     
    Andy Fraser, Feb 28, 2004
  9. Guest

    oldandgrey Guest

    For Dreamweaver use the Crossover Office by codeweavers. I use it with
    Dreamweaver MX and find it perfectly usable (not perfect yet, but close).
    Strangely enough I find Dreamweaver more stable under linux than I did
    under Windows, although the tab key does not always work to move from field
    to field.
     
    oldandgrey, Feb 28, 2004
  10. Guest

    Andy Fraser Guest

    I've been meaning to look closer at Crossover Office. We use VMware at work
    which is good but I wouldn't like to do any real work in it.
     
    Andy Fraser, Feb 28, 2004
  11. Total bullshit. You have the choice
    Did you *ever* even just *see* a linux, much less /install/ anything?
    You talk garbage
    Bully for you
    This I seriously doubt
    So you still try to FUD as much as you can
     
    Peter =?ISO-8859-15?Q?K=F6hlmann?=, May 26, 2004
  12. Mike: some Windows users actually *do* install applications. While not the
    majority (as compared to Linux), quite a few build their own systems and
    are responsible for purchasing and installing ALL the software (not just
    the applications, but the operating systems as well). In the Land Of
    Win32, most of the time used by application installation is used by
    file-copy operations (no user intervention). The biggest reason why it
    takes longer to install a Win32 application (as opposed to a Linux
    application) is the required *application bloat* to interface with the
    Windows user interface.

    True; Linux applications are a heck of a lot smaller than their Win32
    counterparts. However, their install routines are as different from those
    of Win32 as night is from day. In fact, the majority of Linux applications
    not only install from the CLI (terminal) interface, but require
    Administrative rights (root in Linux). This does not differ from the Win32
    install flow-chart. The two differences among applications with Win32 and
    Linux counterparts is application size vs. hand-holding. Win32
    applications, by and large, install graphically, and as a consequence, take
    longer to install. Linux applications mostly install CLI-fashion and
    require you to have mapped out where you want the application and all
    subfolder to go ahead of time (the equivalent of planning a tactical
    assault). In Linux, there is no such animal as the *typical install*
    choice. On the other hand, it's the rare Windows application that
    *doesn't* have a typical install choice.

    I *build* my own systems. (In fact, I've built every system I've ever owned
    since 1990.) That means I choose what goes in the box (hardware)and what
    runs on the box (operating systems and applications, games, etc.) I have
    experience with Windows, most Linux distributions, and also Solaris. I run
    Windows and its applications the majority of the time because the
    applications let me work without losing me in alternative ways of doing
    things. Also, there are far more application choices that *fit* that
    mindset for Windows than is the case with Linux.

    Linux distributions (by and large) are *still* highly user-unfriendly
    (especially when it comes to applications and the installation thereof).


    Christopher L. Estep
     
    Christopher L. Estep, May 26, 2004
  13. "Those who give up freedom for security, deserve neither."
    -- Thomas Jefferson

    I happen to love the fact that most Linux users are smarter than the
    average bear. I personally don't care if Linux ever makes it to the
    desktop. It is, and probably always will be, the choice OS for
    programmers, sys admins and hobbyists. I've been using Slackware since it
    was first released, and I've never looked back. It suits me perfectly well
    as a desktop OS as well as holding it's own on all of the servers that I
    run. Running Linux is what makes us gurus, it keeps the average joe
    computer users seperated from the elite. :^)

    -- dj
     
    Destry Jaimes, Jun 19, 2004
  14. it's survival of the fittest ... sink or swim ... do or die
     
    Destry Jaimes, Jun 19, 2004
  15. Amen, brother ... Amen

    --dj
     
    Destry Jaimes, Jun 19, 2004
  16. Guest

    Alan Hicks Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    In alt.os.linux.slackware, Destry Jaimes dared to utter,
    Was it really neccessary to quote 24 lines of text just to add a single
    line of comment? In the future, please trim your posts.

    - --
    It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
    Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
    Ecclesiastes 7:5
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFA1MJMlKR45I6cfKARAmUFAJ9XmN+2jvpdzSa78Rbusjo725b3mACfQ+c8
    WkMJ7Cfk/HQwVRSSOKU3usA=
    =2f3I
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alan Hicks, Jun 19, 2004
  17. Guest

    Haines Brown Guest

    Not sure I understand the comparison. My wife runs Window 98 and is
    more or less computer illiterate. But she knows that to write a
    document, she must double click the Word icon; to cruise Internet she
    clicks the IE icon; and to write a message, she starts Eudora. She,
    and most other Windows users, never have to worry about installation
    and configuration.

    Were I to give her a Linux box on which I installed Mozila, Abiword,
    and qmail, her experience would be much the same as under
    Windows. Click an icon and see app interfaces that are more or less
    standard and cross platform.

    Arguably, installing Linux now can be as easy if not easier than
    Windows, and serious configuration is in some ways easier, but in
    either case we are presuming a person who is reasonably informed, has
    access to necessary documentation, and is ambitious to undertake the
    task. That is not the average computer user.

    If Debian, say, switched places with Microsoft, so that 95% of all
    machines were sold with debian installed and configured, and it came
    equipped with the usual standard applications, would the end user, who
    simply runs applications, find it any harder than Windows? I don't
    think so. That Microsoft dominates the marketplace is not because of
    any current limitations of Linux, but because of history.
     
    Haines Brown, Jun 20, 2004
  18. Guest

    Ruel Smith Guest

    No, it isn't hard. You just forgot that you didn't know squat about Windows
    when you first used it. You must learn - one baby step at a time. You'll
    get it. I did and I've never looked back. I'm trying to get my friends to
    try and convert, or at least try it.
    Personally, I want Linux to be big enough to get 3rd parties to write
    drivers for their own hardware for Linux. And I want good, full-featured
    stuff, but not the loads of poorly written, background running crap they
    dump on Windows users. Just control over everything without the annoyance
    of all that so-called convenience software that comes with it. Creative has
    to be the absolute worst at that...

    However, I don't want it to become so big that every wannabe
    worm/virus/adware/spyware/trojan/malware writer out there has it in his/her
    sights. I'm paranoid about online security, and I'm running software and
    hardware firewalls, and I deny all but the most trusted cookies from my
    machine and I don't want any breach of my security. Linux is well written
    from a security standard, but I don't want to have to be tested on my
    machine. MS can keep being number one and get attacked for all I care.
     
    Ruel Smith, Jun 20, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.